NYT: Trump got 5 Draft deferments (Four for College, One for Bad Feet)

[OKTexas]

Trump did not lie to avoid the draft. he did not flee the Country, he was legally excused.

All true, but I will add that Trump had the opportunity to volunteer and the record reflects that he did not do that.

Neither did willie, the hildabitch or your dear leader, so what's your point?

My point is a direct answer to the posters statement about Donald Trump. We weren't discussing anyone else.

Really, then why were you responding to a post that mentioned Clinton by name if he wasn't part of the discussion?

If you read the posts the comment about Clinton was done and the topic had moved to Trump.

So the first sentence in the post you replied to had no bearing on anything. Damn you really are stupid. Quit digging.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

All true, but I will add that Trump had the opportunity to volunteer and the record reflects that he did not do that.

Neither did willie, the hildabitch or your dear leader, so what's your point?

My point is a direct answer to the posters statement about Donald Trump. We weren't discussing anyone else.

Really, then why were you responding to a post that mentioned Clinton by name if he wasn't part of the discussion?

If you read the posts the comment about Clinton was done and the topic had moved to Trump.

So the first sentence in the post you replied to had no bearing on anything. Damn you really are stupid. Quit digging.

Why don't you learn how to read? The previous comment was by another poster, I only added my thoughts to a post no one had responded to.

 

[OKTexas]

Fox is the only on that's not a hildabitch mouth piece, but I'v also talked to attorneys not on TV and the way they read the law the hildabitch fucked up, not only morally, but legally and could easily be prosecuted.

It is complete and utterly ridiculous to make a judgment based on generalizations. The only people privy to all the facts are the DOJ prosecutors who made the decision not to go forward based on those facts. Anyone professing to know facts not in evidence is a simple idiot.

Comey laid out a prosecutable case on national TV dumb ass.

No he didn't what were you smoking when he said "In looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts," he said. Past prosecutions, he said, generally involved "clearly intentional and willful mishandling," "vast quantities of materials," or "indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice."

By destroying her emails and not turning all of them over as he stated is an effort to obstruct justice. Not only did she violate national security laws, she also violated federal records keeping laws. She simply tried to hide what she was doing form scrutiny, that proves intent.

You are really stretching there. They requested all her official Emails. As the attorneys, search all her Emails to sort out what they requested, they asked her what to do with the rest. Since she didn't need them, she said to discard them. A couple accidentally got into the wrong stack, but there was no effort to intentionally destroy anything requested. All this was covered in her testimony and the testimony of others.

Yeah, thousands got in the wrong stack, are you really that gullible?

 

[BULLDOG]

No he didn't what were you smoking when he said "In looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts," he said. Past prosecutions, he said, generally involved "clearly intentional and willful mishandling," "vast quantities of materials," or "indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice."

By destroying her emails and not turning all of them over as he stated is an effort to obstruct justice. Not only did she violate national security laws, she also violated federal records keeping laws. She simply tried to hide what she was doing form scrutiny, that proves intent.

Now you're entering blah, blah, blah, territory. I just got done showing you a quote from the FBI Director that he didn't have that kind of evidence to prosecute. You're just making stuff up now.

So he didn't say she destroyed emails and didn't fail to turn them all over the the state dept?

He said there was no reason to believe she intentionally destroyed any requested Emails.

Really, so what was her intent in not turning over thousands of work related emails as described by Comey? And what was the intent of wiping the server to the extent to make anything on it irretrievable? Come on guy, pull your head out.

Thousands of work related Emails not turned over? Did you pull that number out of your ass? You need a link to support a number that big.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

It is complete and utterly ridiculous to make a judgment based on generalizations. The only people privy to all the facts are the DOJ prosecutors who made the decision not to go forward based on those facts. Anyone professing to know facts not in evidence is a simple idiot.

Comey laid out a prosecutable case on national TV dumb ass.

No he didn't what were you smoking when he said "In looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts," he said. Past prosecutions, he said, generally involved "clearly intentional and willful mishandling," "vast quantities of materials," or "indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice."

By destroying her emails and not turning all of them over as he stated is an effort to obstruct justice. Not only did she violate national security laws, she also violated federal records keeping laws. She simply tried to hide what she was doing form scrutiny, that proves intent.

You are really stretching there. They requested all her official Emails. As the attorneys, search all her Emails to sort out what they requested, they asked her what to do with the rest. Since she didn't need them, she said to discard them. A couple accidentally got into the wrong stack, but there was no effort to intentionally destroy anything requested. All this was covered in her testimony and the testimony of others.

Yeah, thousands got in the wrong stack, are you really that gullible?

I'm done for the evening gentlemen, I have a meeting at 7:30 I'll have to continue this tomorrow. Thanks for an entertaining evening.

 

[BULLDOG]

It is complete and utterly ridiculous to make a judgment based on generalizations. The only people privy to all the facts are the DOJ prosecutors who made the decision not to go forward based on those facts. Anyone professing to know facts not in evidence is a simple idiot.

Comey laid out a prosecutable case on national TV dumb ass.

No he didn't what were you smoking when he said "In looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts," he said. Past prosecutions, he said, generally involved "clearly intentional and willful mishandling," "vast quantities of materials," or "indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice."

By destroying her emails and not turning all of them over as he stated is an effort to obstruct justice. Not only did she violate national security laws, she also violated federal records keeping laws. She simply tried to hide what she was doing form scrutiny, that proves intent.

You are really stretching there. They requested all her official Emails. As the attorneys, search all her Emails to sort out what they requested, they asked her what to do with the rest. Since she didn't need them, she said to discard them. A couple accidentally got into the wrong stack, but there was no effort to intentionally destroy anything requested. All this was covered in her testimony and the testimony of others.

Yeah, thousands got in the wrong stack, are you really that gullible?

You still looking for something to back up thousands of destroyed work related Emails?

 

[OKTexas]

Neither did willie, the hildabitch or your dear leader, so what's your point?

My point is a direct answer to the posters statement about Donald Trump. We weren't discussing anyone else.

Really, then why were you responding to a post that mentioned Clinton by name if he wasn't part of the discussion?

If you read the posts the comment about Clinton was done and the topic had moved to Trump.

So the first sentence in the post you replied to had no bearing on anything. Damn you really are stupid. Quit digging.

Why don't you learn how to read? The previous comment was by another poster, I only added my thoughts to a post no one had responded to.

So the comment about not fleeing the country wasn't in relation to Clinton? REALLY? Clinton was the one that left the country, not Trump. And on that note, I'm going to bed.

 

[OKTexas]

Comey laid out a prosecutable case on national TV dumb ass.

No he didn't what were you smoking when he said "In looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts," he said. Past prosecutions, he said, generally involved "clearly intentional and willful mishandling," "vast quantities of materials," or "indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice."

By destroying her emails and not turning all of them over as he stated is an effort to obstruct justice. Not only did she violate national security laws, she also violated federal records keeping laws. She simply tried to hide what she was doing form scrutiny, that proves intent.

You are really stretching there. They requested all her official Emails. As the attorneys, search all her Emails to sort out what they requested, they asked her what to do with the rest. Since she didn't need them, she said to discard them. A couple accidentally got into the wrong stack, but there was no effort to intentionally destroy anything requested. All this was covered in her testimony and the testimony of others.

Yeah, thousands got in the wrong stack, are you really that gullible?

You still looking for something to back up thousands of destroyed work related Emails?

So where are the thousands she didn't turn over? If they were available wouldn't she have turned them over by now?

 

[BULLDOG]

My point is a direct answer to the posters statement about Donald Trump. We weren't discussing anyone else.

Really, then why were you responding to a post that mentioned Clinton by name if he wasn't part of the discussion?

If you read the posts the comment about Clinton was done and the topic had moved to Trump.

So the first sentence in the post you replied to had no bearing on anything. Damn you really are stupid. Quit digging.

Why don't you learn how to read? The previous comment was by another poster, I only added my thoughts to a post no one had responded to.

So the comment about not fleeing the country wasn't in relation to Clinton? REALLY? Clinton was the one that left the country, not Trump. And on that note, I'm going to bed.

Wussing out on thousands of work related Emails? I knew you would.

 

[BULLDOG]

No he didn't what were you smoking when he said "In looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts," he said. Past prosecutions, he said, generally involved "clearly intentional and willful mishandling," "vast quantities of materials," or "indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice."

By destroying her emails and not turning all of them over as he stated is an effort to obstruct justice. Not only did she violate national security laws, she also violated federal records keeping laws. She simply tried to hide what she was doing form scrutiny, that proves intent.

You are really stretching there. They requested all her official Emails. As the attorneys, search all her Emails to sort out what they requested, they asked her what to do with the rest. Since she didn't need them, she said to discard them. A couple accidentally got into the wrong stack, but there was no effort to intentionally destroy anything requested. All this was covered in her testimony and the testimony of others.

Yeah, thousands got in the wrong stack, are you really that gullible?

You still looking for something to back up thousands of destroyed work related Emails?

So where are the thousands she didn't turn over? If they were available wouldn't she have turned them over by now?

Link to show you didn't just imagine them, and they were real?

 

[Muhammed]

I don't blame anyone who dodged the Vietnam era draft. I wouldn't have went. The war had absolutely nothing to do with US national security.

In fact, It's one of the reasons I will never vote Democrat. They are bloodthirsty slave drivers and murderers.

 

[SmokeALib]

Since libtards don't serve - I find it ironic that they enjoy spewing about service records.

 

[OKTexas]

Really, then why were you responding to a post that mentioned Clinton by name if he wasn't part of the discussion?

If you read the posts the comment about Clinton was done and the topic had moved to Trump.

So the first sentence in the post you replied to had no bearing on anything. Damn you really are stupid. Quit digging.

Why don't you learn how to read? The previous comment was by another poster, I only added my thoughts to a post no one had responded to.

So the comment about not fleeing the country wasn't in relation to Clinton? REALLY? Clinton was the one that left the country, not Trump. And on that note, I'm going to bed.

Wussing out on thousands of work related Emails? I knew you would.

Nope, just needed some sleep.

 

[OKTexas]

By destroying her emails and not turning all of them over as he stated is an effort to obstruct justice. Not only did she violate national security laws, she also violated federal records keeping laws. She simply tried to hide what she was doing form scrutiny, that proves intent.

You are really stretching there. They requested all her official Emails. As the attorneys, search all her Emails to sort out what they requested, they asked her what to do with the rest. Since she didn't need them, she said to discard them. A couple accidentally got into the wrong stack, but there was no effort to intentionally destroy anything requested. All this was covered in her testimony and the testimony of others.

Yeah, thousands got in the wrong stack, are you really that gullible?

You still looking for something to back up thousands of destroyed work related Emails?

So where are the thousands she didn't turn over? If they were available wouldn't she have turned them over by now?

Link to show you didn't just imagine them, and they were real?

See Comey's testimony before congress, specifically questions by Trey Gowdy.



Listen closely to the whole video.

 

[whitehall]

Granted the left's perspective of history only goes back to the last comedy channel political skit but they should at least be aware of the Clinton legacy since one of them is running for president. Hillary's husband Bill was a genuine draft dodger who demonstrated against his own Country while in England and caught the eye of the KGB who offered the Arkansas hick a free tour of Mother Russia. Slick Willie told his draft board that he was joining the Reserves and told the Reserve unit that he was being drafted. Once again a Clinton lied and other guys died.

 

[BULLDOG]

You are really stretching there. They requested all her official Emails. As the attorneys, search all her Emails to sort out what they requested, they asked her what to do with the rest. Since she didn't need them, she said to discard them. A couple accidentally got into the wrong stack, but there was no effort to intentionally destroy anything requested. All this was covered in her testimony and the testimony of others.

Yeah, thousands got in the wrong stack, are you really that gullible?

You still looking for something to back up thousands of destroyed work related Emails?

So where are the thousands she didn't turn over? If they were available wouldn't she have turned them over by now?

Link to show you didn't just imagine them, and they were real?

See Comey's testimony before congress, specifically questions by Trey Gowdy.



Listen closely to the whole video.

So why didn't the partisan republican FBI director recommend prosecution? I ask again, do you think Comey is part of a conspiracy, or is it more likely that he couldn't find grounds for prosecution so he tried to discredit her in the only way he could? That's exactly what Goudy did. Goudy couldn't find grounds to prove any wrong doing, but he tried really hard to make it sound like he did. The bottom line for both of them is that if they could have found something to prosecute her for, they would have, and neither of them did. Why?

 

[paulitician]

Oh Gawd, more 'Convenient Patriotism' Bullshite from Democrats. Good thing most aren't buying it. Most understand Democrats despise our military and country. They know Democrats will get back to hating our military and country right after the Election's over. Democrats aren't foolin everyone.

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah, thousands got in the wrong stack, are you really that gullible?

You still looking for something to back up thousands of destroyed work related Emails?

So where are the thousands she didn't turn over? If they were available wouldn't she have turned them over by now?

Link to show you didn't just imagine them, and they were real?

See Comey's testimony before congress, specifically questions by Trey Gowdy.



Listen closely to the whole video.

So why didn't the partisan republican FBI director recommend prosecution? I ask again, do you think Comey is part of a conspiracy, or is it more likely that he couldn't find grounds for prosecution so he tried to discredit her in the only way he could? That's exactly what Goudy did. Goudy couldn't find grounds to prove any wrong doing, but he tried really hard to make it sound like he did. The bottom line for both of them is that if they could have found something to prosecute her for, they would have, and neither of them did. Why?

Gwodys questions proved she lie under oath to congress and discredited the FBIs determination. We will never know what pressures might have been exerted on Comey and the prosecutors involved in the case because all involved were required to sign nondisclosure agreements. You've already made up your mind, I've proved my points, so feel free to keep your head buried firmly in the hildabitches ass, I really don't care. My posts are aimed at people who might be receptive to the truth.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

I don't blame anyone who dodged the Vietnam era draft. I wouldn't have went. The war had absolutely nothing to do with US national security.

In fact, It's one of the reasons I will never vote Democrat. They are bloodthirsty slave drivers and murderers.

Then you better learn about how Richard Nixon deliberately sabotaged the Paris Peace talks so he could win his election. That move accounted for 20,000 more dead American soldiers.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Since libtards don't serve - I find it ironic that they enjoy spewing about service records.

During Vietnam, it was Republicans running for the hills, Chickenhawks every single one.